Skip to content


Market Committee and Another Vs. Krishan Kadian - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtHaryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided On
Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 923 of 2013
Judge
AppellantMarket Committee and Another
RespondentKrishan Kadian
Excerpt:
.....party no.1 but of no avail. 4. the respondent-complainant filed complaint under section 12 of the consumer protection act, 1986, which after contest was accepted by the district forum directing the appellants-opposite parties as under:- œ¦¦¦.we direct the respondents to refund the amount of interest deposited with 2ndand 3rdinstallment + rs.20,756/- as discussed above to the complainant along with interest 2 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till actual realization of final payment along with rs.2000/- as litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.? 5. the question for consideration before us is as to whether the respondent-complainant falls within the domain of consumer or not? 6......
Judgment:

B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member:

1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated June 12th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Jhajjar.

2. Krishan Kadian-complainant (respondent) purchased a Booth/Shop No.17 situated in New Vegetable Market, Jhajjar in an open auction conducted by the appellants-opposite parties on December 18th, 2007 for a price of Rs.28,15,000/-. The respondent-complainant deposited Rs.07,03,750/- at the time of bid and the remaining amount of Rs.21,11,250/- was to be paid by him either in cash within 30 days or with interest at the rate of 15% per annum in six half yearly instalments or as may be specified by the appellant-Board.

3. The respondent-complainant gave an application for waiving off the interest on the instalments amount and the same was recommended by the appellant-opposite party No.1 but of no avail.

4. The respondent-complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which after contest was accepted by the District Forum directing the appellants-opposite parties as under:-

œ¦¦¦.we direct the respondents to refund the amount of interest deposited with 2ndand 3rdinstallment + Rs.20,756/- as discussed above to the complainant along with interest 2 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till actual realization of final payment along with Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.?

5. The question for consideration before us is as to whether the respondent-complainant falls within the domain of consumer or not?

6. Honble Supreme Court in Birla Technologies Ltd versus Neutral Glass and Allied Industries Ltd, 2011(1) CPR 1 (SC) has held as under:-

œ(i)  Consumer Protection Act, 1986 “ Section 2(1)(d)(i) “ A person purchasing goods for commercial purposes is not a consumer. (Para 6)

(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 “ Section 2(1)(d)(ii), after amendment-A person availing services for any commercial purpose is not a consumer. (Para 8)

(iii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 “ Section 2(1)(d)(i) and (ii)“ The complaint filed after amendment of the Act-Goods purchased for commercial purposes-Services were hired or availed of for commercial purposes-Complaint not maintainable. (Para 9)

(iv) Limitation Act, 1963 “ Section 14 “Period spent in prosecuting proceedings before wrong forum-To be excluded while determining limitation. (Para 10)?

7. Indisputably, the respondent-complainant purchased booth/shop site in vegetable market, meaning thereby, the same was for commercial purpose. Therefore, the complainant does not fall within the definition of œConsumer? as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

8. In view of the above, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

9. However, the complainant shall have liberty to seek his grievances before the proper forum or civil court, as per law. He can seek help for condonation of delay in accordance with law laid down in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute “ 1995(3) SCC 583.

10. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants-opposite parties against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //